4 ms·

I wouldn't bet against MS regarding backward compatibility. I'm sure that everything running on x86 runs or will soon run on ARM. Perhaps a little slower yes, b

by yyyk 6y ago

I wouldn't bet against MS regarding backward compatibility. I'm sure that everything running on x86 runs or will soon run on ARM. Perhaps a little slower yes, but your average consumer will be unaware of the difference beside that, so for every practical purpose Windows will have 'more complete suites of software available'. There's one Windows software sector that this is not good enough for - games (really care about performance+latency, unlikely to ever port to ARM), but that sector is the least likely to want to switch to ARM in the first place. Gamers will go Windows+AMD anyway. The bigger problem for Windows-on-ARM is that non-Apple desktop-class ARM processors are right now rather weak, and that affects all applications, even ported apps.

zapzupnz 6y ago
> I'm sure that everything running on x86 runs or will soon run on ARM. Perhaps a little slower yes, but your average consumer will be unaware of the difference Windows-on-ARM already has 32-bit x86 emulation — and it's slow as molasses. Believe me, people do notice the slowdown. But Microsoft has everything to gain by upping the performance to match what macOS is doing with Rosetta 2, so it's definitely a space to watch closely.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  Apple's leg-work on the lead up to this migration is really standing out here. By deprecating 32 bit app support over the past ~2 years, Apple only needs to emulate 64 bit x86. For Microsoft, 32 bit support is still more important than 64 bit support, but big chunks of Windows applications want 64 bit support as well. Microsoft has had one foot on both sides of the 32/64 bit divide for years and it's making this migration a lot tougher.
ogre_codes 6y ago
> I wouldn't bet against MS regarding backward compatibility. I'm sure that everything running on x86 runs or will soon run on ARM. Oddly, Microsoft has 32 bit x86 apps running on ARM, but 64 bit x86 apps are broken. More or less exactly the opposite of Apple in terms of legacy software. This means there are some pretty notable holes in the Windows ARM Pro software scene -> Adobe being the biggest, most obvious. The message from Apple is "Everything that runs on Catalina runs on the new Macs", but software which has been ported will run best. The messaging from Microsoft is much more nuanced. > The bigger problem for Windows-on-ARM is that non-Apple desktop-class ARM processors are right now rather weak, and that affects all applications, even ported apps. This is why Apple can afford to go all-in on ARM while Microsoft has to tap-dance back and forth between the two platforms.
- yyyk 6y ago
  >Oddly, Microsoft has 32 bit x86 apps running on ARM, but 64 bit x86 apps are broken. It has been argued on HN that the reason was x86_64 patents that will very soon expire. Once that happens, Windows-on-ARM is very likely to have x86_64 emulation as well. Besdies, 99% of Windows software is available as 32bit. The software sectors that don't will either never port old stuff (games) or will port anyway for Mac and have an easy Windows port as a result (e.g. Adobe). >This is why Apple can afford to go all-in on ARM while Microsoft has to tap-dance back and forth between the two platforms. Microsoft is mostly a software company, rather than an hardware one. It doesn't matter to them on what processor type you run so long as it's their software. I suspect the biggest reason for focusing on ARM isn't Mac, it's Azure.
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  > This is why Apple can afford to go all-in on ARM while Microsoft has to tap-dance back and forth between the two platforms. Microsoft has to tap-dance because it has a very long-tail of developers that do not accept change lightly.
- int_19h 6y ago
  For Windows, these priorities make more sense, because most Win32 apps are still 32-bit only. There'd be a lot more holes if it could only do x84-64.
Const-me 6y ago
> unlikely to ever port to ARM Game developers have been porting their games to ARM for long time now. Sometimes, like GTA San Andreas, even for windows ARM, but these days the platform is usually iOS, Android, or Nintendo Switch. Historically there were others, PS Vita, Nintendo DS, they all had ARM CPUs.
- yyyk 6y ago
  The context was referring to existing software libraries, of course it is technically possible for new titles to have an ARM version. Existing games are rarely supported, some popular ones sometimes get a 'remake' or a 'remaster' which then might port them, but often games are left as is.

by yyyk 6y ago

zapzupnz 6y ago

> I'm sure that everything running on x86 runs or will soon run on ARM. Perhaps a little slower yes, but your average consumer will be unaware of the difference Windows-on-ARM already has 32-bit x86 emulation — and it's slow as molasses. Believe me, people do notice the slowdown. But Microsoft has everything to gain by upping the performance to match what macOS is doing with Rosetta 2, so it's definitely a space to watch closely.

ogre_codes 6y ago
Apple's leg-work on the lead up to this migration is really standing out here. By deprecating 32 bit app support over the past ~2 years, Apple only needs to emulate 64 bit x86. For Microsoft, 32 bit support is still more important than 64 bit support, but big chunks of Windows applications want 64 bit support as well. Microsoft has had one foot on both sides of the 32/64 bit divide for years and it's making this migration a lot tougher.

ogre_codes 6y ago

> I wouldn't bet against MS regarding backward compatibility. I'm sure that everything running on x86 runs or will soon run on ARM. Oddly, Microsoft has 32 bit x86 apps running on ARM, but 64 bit x86 apps are broken. More or less exactly the opposite of Apple in terms of legacy software. This means there are some pretty notable holes in the Windows ARM Pro software scene -> Adobe being the biggest, most obvious. The message from Apple is "Everything that runs on Catalina runs on the new Macs", but software which has been ported will run best. The messaging from Microsoft is much more nuanced. > The bigger problem for Windows-on-ARM is that non-Apple desktop-class ARM processors are right now rather weak, and that affects all applications, even ported apps. This is why Apple can afford to go all-in on ARM while Microsoft has to tap-dance back and forth between the two platforms.

yyyk 6y ago
>Oddly, Microsoft has 32 bit x86 apps running on ARM, but 64 bit x86 apps are broken. It has been argued on HN that the reason was x86_64 patents that will very soon expire. Once that happens, Windows-on-ARM is very likely to have x86_64 emulation as well. Besdies, 99% of Windows software is available as 32bit. The software sectors that don't will either never port old stuff (games) or will port anyway for Mac and have an easy Windows port as a result (e.g. Adobe). >This is why Apple can afford to go all-in on ARM while Microsoft has to tap-dance back and forth between the two platforms. Microsoft is mostly a software company, rather than an hardware one. It doesn't matter to them on what processor type you run so long as it's their software. I suspect the biggest reason for focusing on ARM isn't Mac, it's Azure.
WorldMaker 6y ago
> This is why Apple can afford to go all-in on ARM while Microsoft has to tap-dance back and forth between the two platforms. Microsoft has to tap-dance because it has a very long-tail of developers that do not accept change lightly.
int_19h 6y ago
For Windows, these priorities make more sense, because most Win32 apps are still 32-bit only. There'd be a lot more holes if it could only do x84-64.

Const-me 6y ago

> unlikely to ever port to ARM Game developers have been porting their games to ARM for long time now. Sometimes, like GTA San Andreas, even for windows ARM, but these days the platform is usually iOS, Android, or Nintendo Switch. Historically there were others, PS Vita, Nintendo DS, they all had ARM CPUs.

yyyk 6y ago
The context was referring to existing software libraries, of course it is technically possible for new titles to have an ARM version. Existing games are rarely supported, some popular ones sometimes get a 'remake' or a 'remaster' which then might port them, but often games are left as is.